The way he/she conducted herself was to post this stuff on about 5 different forums here, and get him/herself banned. Having begged to be allowed back he/she proceeds to post the same crap. Can you understand the reaction now?

The way he/she conducted herself was to post this stuff on about 5 different forums here, and get him/herself banned. Having begged to be allowed back he/she proceeds to post the same crap. Can you understand the reaction now?

I too understand your reaction, and I completely understand why I got banned in the first place. I thank you for letting me back in to discuss this wonderful group and their music.

Understand I wouldn't be posing this 'crap' if I didn't think there was something to it; I'm not here to waste your time, or mine (if wasting time is even possible). I personally enjoy interpreting their music as well as enjoying it; what they did was magical. I absolutely agree that those who are charging money for 'hidden messages' need a better hobby, but this is completely free and it really changed the way I listened to The Beatles' music. You've probably heard this before, but I really feel that this is the correct 'interpretation' of their music, as well as the most enjoyable way to listen to it. They are speaking directly to you, spirit to spirit. It is divine love. The Beatles will always be new, as well as true, just like life/love in the present moment.

Again, I do understand your reaction, but I am not going to break the rules again. I would appreciate kindness and love from your part as well. Remember, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Well, Jethro Tull is trying to make the Beatles sound religious. And that maybe only the first step to something else, which is no good. In this I agree with the swine. But religion being for the poor man is offending as if, you have nothing poor guys but religion, no life, no emotions, no thoughts, nothing to be happy about, nothing to enjoy and to expect from this life. Maybe go and die right now? This is a very careless unresponsible statement. In this I agree with Alexis.

Well, Jethro Tull is trying to make the Beatles sound religious. And that maybe only the first step to something else, which is no good. In this I agree with the swine.

I am not trying to make The Beatles sound 'religious,' I'm trying to say that they were prophets. I'm trying to say that they will always be true, as they say in song: "and while I'm away, I'll write home every day, and send all my loving to you." They may be gone physically, but the love in their music is always for us to share in the present. They sugarcoated the truth with beautiful music, and now we can understand what they were trying to tell us. It makes their music even better, and "The Present" explains this in detail.

I'm having trouble with this. I couldn't disagree more with JT's view of the Beatles if I tried (prophet's my ar*e) and I'm as godless as they come, but am I right in supposing this person is being banned for expressing opinions not in favour with the majority? That don't sit right with me. If being absurd is a basis for banning, can I suggest banning:- Sandra for liking Van Halen- Jane for seeing only the good in Lennon- Bobber for his ridiculously youthful good looks- me for always getting the wrong end of the stick.

I would rather argue against/ignore Jethro's ludicrous assertions than banning him. What are we, the church?Forgive me if I've totally misunderstood this issue.

I'm having trouble with this. I couldn't disagree more with JT's view of the Beatles if I tried (prophet's my ar*e) and I'm as godless as they come, but am I right in supposing this person is being banned for expressing opinions not in favour with the majority? That don't sit right with me. If being absurd is a basis for banning, can I suggest banning:- Sandra for liking Van Halen- Jane for seeing only the good in Lennon- Bobber for his ridiculously youthful good looks- me for always getting the wrong end of the stick.

I would rather argue against/ignore Jethro's ludicrous assertions than banning him. What are we, the church?Forgive me if I've totally misunderstood this issue.

The reason for the ban was not expressing this thing in particular. It was posting the same post, which was JT's first post, in five or six different boards. It's called spamming and people will find their membership disabled. So, JT was banned for spamming, not for expressing a certain belief.Thanks for the credits. You're not too bad yourself either. Will Al ever set up another Sixties Night?

Well, Jethro Tull is trying to make the Beatles sound religious. And that maybe only the first step to something else, which is no good. In this I agree with the swine.

well thank you miss jane. we are coming together at least. wanna join my stable?

Quote from: 1393

But religion being for the poor man is offending as if, you have nothing poor guys but religion, no life, no emotions, no thoughts, nothing to be happy about, nothing to enjoy and to expect from this life. Maybe go and die right now? This is a very careless unresponsible statement. In this I agree with Alexis.

i am not responsible for this interpretation. like bobber already said, theres more poor people in churches than fat rich ones like me.

i am not responsible for this interpretation. like bobber already said, theres more poor people in churches than fat rich ones like me.

Ah, but aren't we responsible for choosing our words and acting in ways that are mindful of others feelings? As was noted earlier, your idea certainly is debatable, but why not put it forth in less inflammatory terms, if that is an option?

Well, Jethro Tull is trying to make the Beatles sound religious. And that maybe only the first step to something else, which is no good.

Why is JT attaching religious connotations so bad? We all get what we can. I could and can happily relate the Beatles to game theory, evolution and the superiority of right wing politics.Jane - you know I disagree completely with your views on Lennon. But we happily debate the issue. Why are JT's skewed opinions any less valid than your own??

More an observation than an insult methinks. I'm a full-on Darwinist, but can't get into knocking religion. Evolution invented it for a reason, it's a huge part of the human experience, and (like violence?? ) can't be turned off just because it doesn't seem to suit us anymore.It's known that religious people generally have longer, more contented lives. This is evolution rewarding individuals who are social animals (because surely religion's primary motive is to bond groups of humans together.)And for the vaste majority of religious people, their faith gives them hope, comfort and contentedness. And who are us sceptics to argue with that?If I want to hate someone it's agnostics. To say "I believe in something but I don't know what" is a ridiculous statement for anyone to make.Anyways, thanks for listening. This is a pet subject of mine and I love sounding off.

pps I work with a Jehovas Witness and we have some very good discussions, though he insists on calling evolution "Darwin's theory." I like to refer to gravity as "Newton's Notion."

More an observation than an insult methinks. I'm a full-on Darwinist, but can't get into knocking religion. Evolution invented it for a reason, it's a huge part of the human experience, and (like violence??) can't be turned off just because it doesn't seem to suit us anymore.It's known that religious people generally have longer, more contented lives. This is evolution rewarding individuals who are social animals (because surely religion's primary motive is to bond groups of humans together.)And for the vaste majority of religious people, their faith gives them hope, comfort and contentedness. And who are us sceptics to argue with that?If I want to hate someone it's agnostics. To say "I believe in something but I don't know what" is a ridiculous statement for anyone to make.Anyways, thanks for listening. This uis a pet subject of mine and I love sounding off.

You see, I don't think it's an A vs B thing. What I mean is, I strongly believe a full fledged Darwinist can be a full-souled religious practitioner. The wall between them is there I think because it is easy to construct, but there's nothing that must of necessity separate them.

And, why hate people for their beliefs (or lack of beliefs, in your example of agnosticism)? Reach out to them, with Darwin, or the Bible, or both!

Here's my favorite joke, or at least the only one I can reliably remember:

Ali: Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac?

Baba: Yeah, wasn't he the guy who lay awake all night, wondering if there really was a Dog?

You see, I don't think it's an A vs B thing. What I mean is, I strongly believe a full fledged Darwinist can be a full-souled religious practitioner.

I don't see how you can, unless you start delving into creationism, which any decent Darwinist would regard as equally absurd. Surely in order to believe in God (I'll grace him with a capital) and evolution you'd have to accept that God has never done anything other than run a very exclusive retirement home (and even then he can't be ar*sed to man the front desk) and perhaps performed the odd miracle. Not much of a CV for a supposedly omnipotent everlasting supernatural being.

I'm having trouble with this. I couldn't disagree more with JT's view of the Beatles if I tried (prophet's my ar*e) and I'm as godless as they come, but am I right in supposing this person is being banned for expressing opinions not in favour with the majority? That don't sit right with me. If being absurd is a basis for banning, can I suggest banning:- Sandra for liking Van Halen- Jane for seeing only the good in Lennon- Bobber for his ridiculously youthful good looks- me for always getting the wrong end of the stick.

I would rather argue against/ignore Jethro's ludicrous assertions than banning him. What are we, the church?Forgive me if I've totally misunderstood this issue.

I`ve never mentioned that JT should be banned! It`s ok for him to express his ideas. I just posted my thoughts provoked by his ideas. The Beatles had never been that religious and, to my mind, ascribing to their words and lyrics any religious connotations is wrong. Is misleading. IMO looking at things from a religious angle may be like looking at them through another cover. Why do it? Take them as they are.

BTW I never see only good in Lennon, I know quite well what kind of person he was. It`s just my reaction to your extremely downgrading attitude to him. I was absolutely taken aback by this reaction, the reaction that I saw at this forum. Maybe it was because I`ve never seen such an angry cruel attitude to John in my life. Everybody is free to criticise any Beatle, but not in such a way! You have definitely overdone it. Besides, this theory like Lennon being god is not spread in Russia at all. I didn`t know it even existed. People take him as a great artist, that`s it. Before joining this forum I hardly knew who I liked better, Paul or John. But now with your help I don`t like either of them. You, the British, ruin their appeal, put them below the plinth (

Why is JT attaching religious connotations so bad? We all get what we can. I could and can happily relate the Beatles to game theory, evolution and the superiority of right wing politics.Jane - you know I disagree completely with your views on Lennon. But we happily debate the issue. Why are JT's skewed opinions any less valid than your own??

Happily debate the issue? You hurt me all the time (the situation is aggravated by the fact that you`re a man and I am a girl) I have never done it. I wish we could happily debate the issue.I`ve never said JT`s opinions were less valid than mine. Show me this line of mine. Quote it! So why do you say it? You`ve picked me out of all the posters who disagreed with JT. And insisted on something I`ve never said.In fact, Kevin, I don`t want to argue. Cause you will immediately get into this mood of attacking...

I'm a full-on Darwinist, but can't get into knocking religion. Evolution invented it for a reason, it's a huge part of the human experience, and (like violence?? ) can't be turned off just because it doesn't seem to suit us anymore.

I agree that evolution (collective unconscious) invented religion for a reason, and that evolution (collective unconscious) set The Beatles apart from Nature for a reason. The Beatles section is just a small part of "The Present," but it is related to this forum so I specifically mentioned it. The whole book is quite interesting.

Page 219

"Frozen in time: The time is right now and the Beatles' music is still here exactly like it was then. Actually, it has been remastered and is even better. The Beatles have been frozen in time still young, waiting for us to evolve enough to hear what the music contains, just as Jesus has been waiting on us to understand him.